Measure #3

Pages

476 posts / 0 new
Last post
iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

Fritz the Cat Said:

espringers Said:
of course the farm bureau agrees with your interpretation... 

Joeseph, who determines what is a harmful modern farming practice? Would you rather it went through a formal setting at the Capitol (legislature) or a free for all in the media?

I believe in the initiated ballot process, the right of the people to petition. However, when extremists throw out some pictures of sad puppies and dead horses all reason goes out the window. Trial by media. The rule of law should be based on facts not emotion. 

....

What about when a group forms an ad campaign suggesting that if M3 isn't passed that ND familes, and grocery stores will not have access to affordable food choices? What emotion does that evoke? Fear possibly?

I don't support PETA or HSUS even slightly, all I'm saying is the tactic is the same no matter who is using it, and you're saying it's ok as long as it's supporting your agenda?

J

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

There are many of us that don't have a dog in the fight.  Not now anyway.  My parents belonged to NDFB when we were on the farm.  Later when the farm was sold my dad worked at Farmers Union in town.  So I got both perspectives.  My perspective is Farmers Union is to liberal.  They think they need to vote democrat for the subsidies.  Farm Bureau is a couple of centuries behind and don't think they should have any regulations.  To bad there isn't a group that was not off the wall one direction or the other.
I agree with the majority of Farm Bureau positions, but some are so wacked out that I am very disappointed.  I dislike Farmers Union politically because they tell their members Obama is great.  If I was farming I would be pulling my hair out with frustration.
All that said it's still a fact Farmers Union opposed measure three.  Their political position has no bearing.  Because they often disagree with Farm Bureau has no bearing.  What is important is their stand on this single non political measure.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

There are many of us that don't have a dog in the fight.  Not now anyway.  My parents belonged to NDFB when we were on the farm.  Later when the farm was sold my dad worked at Farmers Union in town.  So I got both perspectives.  My perspective is Farmers Union is to liberal.  They think they need to vote democrat for the subsidies.  Farm Bureau is a couple of centuries behind and don't think they should have any regulations.  To bad there isn't a group that was not off the wall one direction or the other.
I agree with the majority of Farm Bureau positions, but some are so wacked out that I am very disappointed.  I dislike Farmers Union politically because they tell their members Obama is great.  If I was farming I would be pulling my hair out with frustration.
All that said it's still a fact Farmers Union opposed measure three.  Their political position has no bearing.  Because they often disagree with Farm Bureau has no bearing.  What is important is their stand on this single non political measure.

It is only important this instance becasue it fits your agenda against the NDFB. And Bruce please do not suggets you are not biased against this ag org because all one has to do is go to the site you moderate Nodak and see the real "plainsman" and the veiws you have towards this ag org. Even on here youhave compared them to the Posse Comitatus and have suggested they are a "threat" to govt officials.

Bruce can you answer the question beings no one else will. Are there any legislators, particularily urban ones that have nothing to lose in opposing this this measure that have done so because they bleive the claims you and othes have made that this will prevent the legislature from passing laws regulaing agriculture?

If what you and othersclaim is true, shouldn;t there be?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

Fritz the Cat Said:

espringers Said:
of course the farm bureau agrees with your interpretation... 

Joeseph, who determines what is a harmful modern farming practice? Would you rather it went through a formal setting at the Capitol (legislature) or a free for all in the media?

I believe in the initiated ballot process, the right of the people to petition. However, when extremists throw out some pictures of sad puppies and dead horses all reason goes out the window. Trial by media. The rule of law should be based on facts not emotion. 

....

What about when a group forms an ad campaign suggesting that if M3 isn't passed that ND familes, and grocery stores will not have access to affordable food choices? What emotion does that evoke? Fear possibly?

I don't support PETA or HSUS even slightly, all I'm saying is the tactic is the same no matter who is using it, and you're saying it's ok as long as it's supporting your agenda?

In countries where these agendas banning certain ag "practices" have been successful and are implemented, food costs have risen substantially. So I would guess what it evokes is fact. 
 

For those of you that beleive no worthy ND would ever vote to suppport HSUS written, funded and agenda driven measures here in good old rural agricultural based ND, perhaps you can answer why Measure 5 is polling roughly 60% for and 30% against?

It is FACT HSUS wrote this measure. It is FACT HSUS is funding this measure, It is FACT HSUS owns the domain name of the website NDan;s are asked to go to for their information on Measure 5.

Wake up. Back in the HFH debate I said that measure and ivolving HSUS as was done would open the door for other ballot measures written by HSUS in a manner to slyly further their agenda. plainsman what was your response to that suggestion??????The very same response you started the discussion on Measure 5 with that they were simply being used as a "boggeyman"

Guess what here they are.

It is time to pull your head out of the sand.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Here are the facts... At least a good portion of the average joes on this site and the biggest farm organization in this state disagree with ur guys interpretation of what this measure could do. So, it certainly isn't cut and dried. And not a single person can guarantee us that u are right and that the courts, won't interpret it the way we and the fu do. Even if there is only a 25% chance we are right and u are wrong, why in the hell should we take that chance? I am not about to vote yes and roll the dice. No sense trying to convince us otherwise. And don't forget, not a darn one of is have a dog in this fight like u guys. And even one farm organization that does reads it like we do. Forgive me for thinking u guys have a skewed view on some pretty plain language because of what is at stake and what u have to gain.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
Bruce can you answer the question beings no one else will. Are there any legislators, particularily urban ones that have nothing to lose in opposing this this measure that have done so because they bleive the claims you and othes have made that this will prevent the legislature from passing laws regulaing agriculture?

No one has answered the question because only a fool would answer a question that he can not know the answer to.  Do you have any idea?  No, you don't, your just blowing smoke.  So lets throw that back to you.  I don't have time to call every legislator in urban areas and ask.  My guess is there are those who will vote against it for the very reason you outlined because they are Farmers Union members.  Remember, that's a guess.

You say I am biased NDFB.  Yes, I guess if you take it in the context I think they are radical.  I base that on their home page.  One of the fellows on nokdak posted the page on their site that called for abolishing agriculture regulations.  Your explanation at the time was, yes it's true, but that it was only a wish list.  It doesn't look like it now.  It looks like they are starting with blocking regulations.  The PETA and HSUS are simply handy boogie men to scare people into agreeing with you.  I'll agree they a problem, but not for agriculture in North Dakota.  They are the kiss of death to anything they touch in North Dakota.
Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plainsman Said:

espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

There are many of us that don't have a dog in the fight.  Not now anyway.  My parents belonged to NDFB when we were on the farm.  Later when the farm was sold my dad worked at Farmers Union in town.  So I got both perspectives.  My perspective is Farmers Union is to liberal.  They think they need to vote democrat for the subsidies.  Farm Bureau is a couple of centuries behind and don't think they should have any regulations.  To bad there isn't a group that was not off the wall one direction or the other.
I agree with the majority of Farm Bureau positions, but some are so wacked out that I am very disappointed.  I dislike Farmers Union politically because they tell their members Obama is great.  If I was farming I would be pulling my hair out with frustration.
All that said it's still a fact Farmers Union opposed measure three.  Their political position has no bearing.  Because they often disagree with Farm Bureau has no bearing.  What is important is their stand on this single non political measure.

Bruce, could you for once add something new to the discussion. FU is too liberal FB doesn't want any regulation blah blah blah

I helped a friend harvest an elk the other day. He had a once in a life time ND tag and to make sure everything was kosher he contacted the Game Warden. After the animal was quartered we had a lively conversation with the Game Warden. One thing lead to another and I brought up the oil revenue rip off scheme. He said the panel of nine thing was problematic for him. Way too much trust placed in the hands of nine. I asked him what he thought about the one pick to the panel to be made by the wildlife society. He said he didn't like it and that they should never pick someone from the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown. "Those guys are a bunch of nuts." Bruce I'm not making this up.

Bruce you used to work at the federal Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. So there you have it. FU is too liberal, FB wants no regulations and the federal employees at NPWRC are a bunch of nuts. 

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Plainsman Said:

espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

There are many of us that don't have a dog in the fight.  Not now anyway.  Why to go Bruce get your retired Federal Purse out and start to swing it. The has been a very good thread on both sides but  it looks like time for God to get his swing purse.

Plainsman Said:

espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

There are many of us that don't have a dog in the fight.  Not now anyway. 

Stay out just as you have said no dog in the fight.  Anyone that wants to know your opinion of landowners need only to read the HOT TOPICS on NODAK.

BTW you never would answer did you forge your wifes signature on the first HFH measure??  

Plainsman Said:
espringers if you are not understanding enough of the discourse between FU and FB ask someone who does not have a "dog in this fight"

 

If I was farming I would be pulling my hair out with frustration.

Well you are not just someone who has stood on the outside and through darts at farms if you or anyone doughts that check out HOT TOPICS on NODAK.  You are and always have been nothing but a recycler of the Federal tax system.

I have nodog in the Nd dog fight and neither do you that is why the tpoic has went well. Take a hint.

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
Here are the facts... At least a good portion of the average joes on this site and the biggest farm organization in this state disagree with ur guys interpretation of what this measure could do. So, it certainly isn't cut and dried. And not a single person can guarantee us that u are right and that the courts, won't interpret it the way we and the fu do. Even if there is only a 25% chance we are right and u are wrong, why in the hell should we take that chance? I am not about to vote yes and roll the dice. No sense trying to convince us otherwise. And don't forget, not a darn one of is have a dog in this fight like u guys. And even one farm organization that does reads it like we do. Forgive me for thinking u guys have a skewed view on some pretty plain language because of what is at stake and what u have to gain.

espringers, I hope you ar not a professional poller. 7 or 8 "average joes on this site have spoken out against his measure and you claim it is a "good portion" of the several hundred or more?????

And you suggest others are "skewing" things????

espringers please answeer one question. Are there any leislators, even urban ones with nothing to lose, opposing this measure for the reason you and this "good portion" of people on here are suggesting that it will prevent th legislature from reulating agriculture.

If you wish to hace a common sense discussion based on logic as you have said, would it not be "logical" to beleive there would be a petty strong opposition from th very people you claim are having the ability to protect their constitutents taken away from them if this measure passes?

espriner, please answer the question posed. what legislators are in opposition of this measure that you claim will take away their ability to regulate agriculture.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

A good portion of the people involved in this conversation. with 1 exception everyone who spoken up in favor of this measure has a dog in this fight. U know darn well what I meant.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

my guess is no legislators have spoken out against this measure because to do so without knowing your constituents feelings first would be a kiss of death. now you answer my question ... since you can't guarantee your interpretation is correct why should we take a chance?

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I may have to rethink that part about  no dog in the fight.  I think everyone who lives in North Dakota has a dog in the fight if they know it or not.

I find this measure three very troubling.  All the way from pesticide drift to wetland drainage, flooding, tile, etc with no recourse for damages.  It's like giving a three year old a book of matches for a toy.

Further, I don't think the people of North Dakota would leave our farmers at the mercy of HSUS.  It's simply a ploy like the little boy who cried wolf.  The whole thing reminds me of those who would say "trust me".   No thank you. 
espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

and quit pretending like the farmers union farmers Bureau are always on the opposite side of issues. they are not. think high fence hunting property tax and measure 5 on this ballot. they're saying what they're saying an opposing this measure because they honestly believe what they have on their website. not because they oppose everything that farmers Bureau does.if that were the case they wouldn't have any members.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Plainsman Said:

Bruce can you answer the question beings no one else will. Are there any legislators, particularily urban ones that have nothing to lose in opposing this this measure that have done so because they bleive the claims you and othes have made that this will prevent the legislature from passing laws regulaing agriculture?

No one has answered the question because only a fool would answer a question that he can not know the answer to.  Do you have any idea?  No, you don't, your just blowing smoke.  So lets throw that back to you.  I don't have time to call every legislator in urban areas and ask.  My guess is there are those who will vote against it for the very reason you outlined because they are Farmers Union members.  Remember, that's a guess.

You say I am biased NDFB.  Yes, I guess if you take it in the context I think they are radical.  I base that on their home page.  One of the fellows on nokdak posted the page on their site that called for abolishing agriculture regulations.  Your explanation at the time was, yes it's true, but that it was only a wish list.  It doesn't look like it now.  It looks like they are starting with blocking regulations.  The PETA and HSUS are simply handy boogie men to scare people into agreeing with you.  I'll agree they a problem, but not for agriculture in North Dakota.  They are the kiss of death to anything they touch in North Dakota.

plaisnamn do you agree they are behind Meaure 5? Do you agree that HSUS slyly pushes their agendas to end hunting and animal agriculture thru little victories?

If they are the kiss of death as you claim, why are the poll numbers on Measure 5 that they wrote and are funding what they are? Check out the Measure 5 thread.

Once again you reference HSUS and PETA as "boogie men" even though as you type this they have written and funded a measure right here in ND.

This measure is intended to end horse slaughter forever in ND and yet you claim they are no "problem" for agriculture in ND???????  Teir agenda is to end ALL CAFO's or what are simple feedlots here in ND and yet you claim they are "no problem for agriculture here in ND"?

  Pull your head out of your ass. I suppose you beleive they are a problem, "but not for sportsmen here in North Dakota" also??????

Plaisnamn answer this one question is HSUS a "problem" for sportsmen here in ND? Yes or no.

Remember now Bruce sportsmen in ND thought it important to place a constitutional amendment to protect the "right" to hunt.

Why???

plainsman there simply is NO credibility to anything you post.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

if this measure really about the boogie men... Peta and hsus... you can bet your last dollar Farmers Union would be in favor of it. I had no idea the farmers Bureau had a wish list. but, now that I have that information, I have no doubt this measure is an attempt to fulfill that wish list.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

there's a significant difference between the hunting measure and this measure and it's already been pointed out go back and read it.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
my guess is no legislators have spoken out against this measure because to do so without knowing your constituents feelings first would be a kiss of death. now you answer my question ... since you can't guarantee your interpretation is correct why should we take a chance

So espringers, you are saying a legislator from the Fargo district would not beleive protecting his constitutents from the very example given on this thread of feild tiling and the claimed flooding effects by not being able to regulate this "practice" is not important enough to take a stand if what you guys claim is true????

Come on espringers, that simply is not "logical" or even comes close to passing a commons sense test. In fact it would likely garner them many votes if they were to come out in support of your claims and opposed this measure for the reason you claim  in the name of protecting Fargo from flooding.

So espringers could it possibly be that legislators simply know this measure will not do what a HANDFUL of people on an internet site many of whom are blindly biased against the org sponsoring the measure claim it will?

Where are the media stories about this measure taking away the ability to regulate agriculture, is there a grand conspiracy whereby the media would not have any concerns over an unregulated ag industry???

One media story supporting your claim?

Espringers, I am starting to wonder exactly what you do consider "logical thinking".

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

I have no idea. Maybe its because they know it will pass in nd regardless of what they say and they don't want to waste their time or money. Maybe they know its too late cause everyones already been affected by fear ads about starving children. U will have to ask them. I speak only for myself. But, I know its more than just a handful of people on fbo that feel like I do. For gods sake, the largest farm organization in the state does. And nobody has yet to give me a satisfactory explanation for that in the context I laid out above. And when I get in front of an actual computer, I will lay out in detail why jeffs explanation didn't explain a darn thing or address any of our concerns.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Fritz the Cat Said:

espringers Said:
of course the farm bureau agrees with your interpretation... 

Joeseph, who determines what is a harmful modern farming practice? Would you rather it went through a formal setting at the Capitol (legislature) or a free for all in the media?

I believe in the initiated ballot process, the right of the people to petition. However, when extremists throw out some pictures of sad puppies and dead horses all reason goes out the window. Trial by media. The rule of law should be based on facts not emotion. 

....

What about when a group forms an ad campaign suggesting that if M3 isn't passed that ND familes, and grocery stores will not have access to affordable food choices? What emotion does that evoke? Fear possibly?

I don't support PETA or HSUS even slightly, all I'm saying is the tactic is the same no matter who is using it, and you're saying it's ok as long as it's supporting your agenda?

In countries where these agendas banning certain ag "practices" have been successful and are implemented, food costs have risen substantially. So I would guess what it evokes is fact. 
 

For those of you that beleive no worthy ND would ever vote to suppport HSUS written, funded and agenda driven measures here in good old rural agricultural based ND, perhaps you can answer why Measure 5 is polling roughly 60% for and 30% against?

It is FACT HSUS wrote this measure. It is FACT HSUS is funding this measure, It is FACT HSUS owns the domain name of the website NDan;s are asked to go to for their information on Measure 5.

Wake up. Back in the HFH debate I said that measure and ivolving HSUS as was done would open the door for other ballot measures written by HSUS in a manner to slyly further their agenda. plainsman what was your response to that suggestion??????The very same response you started the discussion on Measure 5 with that they were simply being used as a "boggeyman"

Guess what here they are.

It is time to pull your head out of the sand.

Source for the highlighted portion? 

 
We're talking about a bill measure that is allegedly meant to defend our state from any measures that might be proposed that might ban certain ag practices??? You should name this measure after my wife because sometimes she gets mad at me for things that she THINKS I'm going to do before I even have an opportunity to do it, that's basically the same principal here for your argument.

Leave M5 in the measure 5 thread, talk about it all you want over there. I'm voting no on M5 and even have a damn sign in my yard, but you know what? It has absolutely nothing to do with M3. Let the measure stand for itself and quit using M5 as a scare tactic to help your argument. 

Also, care to respond to the inconsistency I pointed out between your stance on M3 and the hypothetical mining measure??

J

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

here is why jeff's explanations carry no weight with me... 1.  it doesn't matter what hsus and peta do here or anywhere else.  each of their issues can be addressed on their own merits by our voters without giving you guys blanket protection that goes well beyond protection from just those two boogeymen.  if it was worded in such a way that it was clear thats all this is about, you would probably have my support and there is no damn doubt you would have farmers union's support too.

2.  the fact that he had the guts to go out and "do something" is irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. 

3.  just because there is no mandate to use a particular practice or technology gives folks like me no comfort.  that argument makes no sense at all.  no farmer is ever mandated to do anything... especially use a particular practice or technology... never have been never will be... just because there isn't a mandate doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if it were beneficial to them even if it proves to be a harmful to someone else. 

4.  relying on the thought process that the only way we will know it won't do what we think it will do is to pass it, is crazy talk... "just trust us.  we are right... you are wrong"... yeah right! 

5.  the idea that the farmer's union opposes everything the farm bureau does is also illogical.  they have obviously worked side by side on many issues in the past and presently.  i already named a few.  and this obviously is about more than just the fact that they haven't worked side by side on this issue together.  the more likely reason they haven't worked side by side on this measure, like they did HFH, property taxes and measure 5 this time around, is because they have opposed it from the beginning.  if it was really just about HSUS and PETA, i have no doubt farmer's union would support it with them just like they are opposing measure 5.  to say otherwise, is bordering on a bald face lie that i simply don't buy into.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd.
The source? google food costs in most any European nation. Goggle animal rights laws in Europe, ect.... Jeff shared the cost of a dozen eggs in sweden where these policies of these orgs have been adopted. Wen is that last time you paid $8 for a dozen eggs?

You can not "leave measure 5" out of the discussion of Measure 3 and have an honest dialogue rearding measure 3 as who is behind Measure 5 is the very intent and premise of Measure 3. Even espringers made that connection altough it seems not to have swayed him.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
there's a significant difference between the hunting measure and this measure and it's already been pointed out go back and read it.

espringers in a state of sportsmen andhunters such as ND, why was THIS constitutional amendment needed?????

You can not claim these groups are not a "problem" for agriculture in opposing this constitutional amendment and turn around and claim the very same orgs are "problems" for sportsmen and so a constitutional amendment was needed.

So WHY was a hunting amendment placed in our constitution?

espringers wrote:here is why jeff's explanations carry no weight with me... 1. it doesn't matter what hsus and peta do here or anywhere else. each of their issues can be addressed on their own merits by our voters without giving you guys blanket protection that goes well beyond protection from just those two boogeymen.

espringers how did you vote on the amendment to the constitution protecting hunting, for or against? Please answer this.

Why?

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
there's a significant difference between the hunting measure and this measure and it's already been pointed out go back and read it.

espringers in a state of sportsmen andhunters such as ND, why was THIS constitutional amendment needed?????

You can not claim these groups are not a "problem" for agriculture in opposing this constitutional amendment and turn around and claim the very same orgs are "problems" for sportsmen and so a constitutional amendment was needed.

So WHY was a hunting amendment placed in our constitution?

espringers wrote:here is why jeff's explanations carry no weight with me... 1. it doesn't matter what hsus and peta do here or anywhere else. each of their issues can be addressed on their own merits by our voters without giving you guys blanket protection that goes well beyond protection from just those two boogeymen.

espringers how did you vote on the amendment to the constitution protecting hunting, for or against? Please answer this.

Why?

Pretty sure he is talking about the savings clause... No matter what you say M3 has no savings clause. Ask a lawyer and then remove  your foot from your mouth and come back and let us know what you found out.

J

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

iluvswnd Said:
 
gst Said:

HUNTNFISHND Said:

gst,

Replace farming and ranching with mining in the wording of this measure. Would you still support this measure?

As long as the state legislature is still able to create and impose reasonable regulations as they will if this measure passes, yes.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


You've been avoiding this for over a page now so I figured I would bring it back so you could answer it. 

J

wstnodak's picture
wstnodak
Offline
Joined: 11/3/02

iluvswnd Said:
 

iluvswnd Said:
 
gst Said:

HUNTNFISHND Said:

gst,

Replace farming and ranching with mining in the wording of this measure. Would you still support this measure?

As long as the state legislature is still able to create and impose reasonable regulations as they will if this measure passes, yes.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


You've been avoiding this for over a page now so I figured I would bring it back so you could answer it. 

I see you are being productive again this morning gabe

If god didn't want us to eat animals....he wouldn't have made them out of food.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
here is why jeff's explanations carry no weight with me... 1.  it doesn't matter what hsus and peta do here or anywhere else.  each of their issues can be addressed on their own merits by our voters without giving you guys blanket protection that goes well beyond protection from just those two boogeymen.  if it was worded in such a way that it was clear thats all this is about, you would probably have my support and there is no damn doubt you would have farmers union's support too.

espringers I asked above how did you vote on the hunting amendmnet and why?

2.  the fact that he had the guts to go out and "do something" is irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. 

How about the fact 3700 people beleived him?  

3.  just because there is no mandate to use a particular practice or technology gives folks like me no comfort.  that argument makes no sense at all.  no farmer is ever mandated to do anything... especially use a particular practice or technology... never have been never will be... just because there isn't a mandate doesn't mean they wouldn't do it if it were beneficial to them even if it proves to be a harmful to someone else. 

there is no "madate" that will end the legislatures ability to regulate agriculture. You have not proven it, legislators are not opposing it and media is ot "breaking" a story on the effects of unregulated ag after this measures passage. Common sense and logic ask why if what you claim is true?  

4.  relying on the thought process that the only way we will know it won't do what we think it will do is to pass it, is crazy talk... "just trust us.  we are right... you are wrong"... yeah right!  

But yet we are yet just supposed to "trust" a small handful of people on a internet site some of whom have a pretty vocal history radically slamming this ag org spnsoring this measure?

5.  the idea that the farmer's union opposes everything the farm bureau does is also illogical.  they have obviously worked side by side on many issues in the past and presently.  i already named a few.  and this obviously is about more than just the fact that they haven't worked side by side on this issue together.  the more likely reason they haven't worked side by side on this measure, like they did HFH, property taxes and measure 5 this time around, is because they have opposed it from the beginning.  if it was really just about HSUS and PETA, i have no doubt farmer's union would support it with them just like they are opposing measure 5.  to say otherwise, is bordering on a bald face lie that i simply don't buy into.

Espringers how much experience do you have in agriculture. Those that do if honest will tell you FU and FB are polar opposites on most every thing, particularily something the OTHER creates. If you have not been directly involved in some of these things thru the past as I have you simply will not understand them. To argue they are ot only shows your lackof undersanding of foolishness.  Don;t take my word for it, look to what Tim and others writeespriners why would FU support Rcalf who has hopped in bed with HSUS in a law suit against the beef check off which FB supports if they are against what HSUS stands for??? You simply do not know enough about the history behind these two opposing ag orgs to make the claims you do.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
there's a significant difference between the hunting measure and this measure and it's already been pointed out go back and read it.

espringers in a state of sportsmen andhunters such as ND, why was THIS constitutional amendment needed?????

You can not claim these groups are not a "problem" for agriculture in opposing this constitutional amendment and turn around and claim the very same orgs are "problems" for sportsmen and so a constitutional amendment was needed.

So WHY was a hunting amendment placed in our constitution?

espringers wrote:here is why jeff's explanations carry no weight with me... 1. it doesn't matter what hsus and peta do here or anywhere else. each of their issues can be addressed on their own merits by our voters without giving you guys blanket protection that goes well beyond protection from just those two boogeymen.

espringers how did you vote on the amendment to the constitution protecting hunting, for or against? Please answer this.

Why?

Pretty sure he is talking about the savings clause... No matter what you say M3 has no savings clause. Ask a lawyer and then remove  your foot from your mouth and come back and let us know what you found out.

Why is it needed?????

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

iluvswnd Said:
 

iluvswnd Said:
 
gst Said:

HUNTNFISHND Said:

gst,

Replace farming and ranching with mining in the wording of this measure. Would you still support this measure?

As long as the state legislature is still able to create and impose reasonable regulations as they will if this measure passes, yes.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


You've been avoiding this for over a page now so I figured I would bring it back so you could answer it. 

I thought I had answered it in that yes I would support it as long as like this measure in it's wording it still allowed the legislature to create and impose reasonable regulations as dos this measure?

Read the answer I gave you in it's entirety including the emboldened underlied protion, there is no "caveat" but rather an explanation for those that need one. .

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

wstnodak Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

iluvswnd Said:
 
gst Said:

HUNTNFISHND Said:

gst,

Replace farming and ranching with mining in the wording of this measure. Would you still support this measure?

As long as the state legislature is still able to create and impose reasonable regulations as they will if this measure passes, yes.

Umm, why the caveat? You told us that it wouldn't affect them creating and imposing reasonable regulations on agriculture if M3 passes so why would you throw the "as long as" onto your answer regarding the hypothetical mining measure with the exact wording???


You've been avoiding this for over a page now so I figured I would bring it back so you could answer it. 

I see you are being productive again this morning gabe

in between loading out trucks so have a bit of time west, thanks for your concern, but I guess I consider dispelling rhetoric and outright bullshit claims regarding an amendment to our constitution "productive" wether you do or not.

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

gst Said:

iluvswnd Said:
 

Pretty sure he is talking about the savings clause... No matter what you say M3 has no savings clause. Ask a lawyer and then remove  your foot from your mouth and come back and let us know what you found out.

Why is it needed?????

The savings clause is needed because it specifically states that the right is there but can still be regulated in the hunting language. As I stated before there is no such savings clause in M3 only that nothing can abridge the right to use modern farming practices. If the hunting language said that nothing could abridge the right to hunt then we would likely have some serious judicial challenges because Tom, Dick, and Harry could go out and hunt whatever/whenever and claim it is their given right. 

J

Pages